Delete Auto Stop/Start ASAP!

[got3fords]

Of course should one not believe in climate change and global warming then likely one won't accept that ass can save gas and emissions.

I don't want to start a climate change argument, but I don't think the question is the climate is changing, it always is, always has. I think the question is how much mankind is contributing to it. I would argue it's not as much as we have been led to believe.

Sponsored

 

[TJC]

.... only saying that it does what is was designed to do.

...Of course should one not believe in climate change and global warming then likely one won't accept that ass can save gas and emissions.

We agree...
- "ASS does what it is designed to do."

Where I have concerns - I do not believe that anyone has studied the increased carbon footprint of all the necessary manufacturing implications with regards to the proposed gains. And there are many.​

​

Quantify what positive or negative effects on the environment have been made from the changes. Show me the science.​

- "Climate change is real and dynamic."

I am not saying human intervention doesn't change the environment. Every species on the planet affects the environment.

But global climate change is driven by changes in solar cycles. For instance, from heat and radiation... which changes the cloud formations on the planet. Less solar radiation allows more cosmic radiation to hit the earth changing the type of cloud cover... which dramatically changes the planets ecosystem. This has been quantified and proven. And conveniently "forgotten".

Scientists have been actively tracking the temps of several planets for decades. They see the same warming / cooling patterns occurring on all the planets that they monitor.

Of course we can blame the same heating and cooling cycles occurring on Mars (that match those on earth) to human intervention as well.

Anything is possible, just not plausible.

99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. This planet will be thriving long after humanity has exited the planetary stage.

None of this matters, I just want a reliable truck...

 

[Msfitoy]

We agree...
- "ASS does what it is designed to do."

Where I have concerns - I do not believe that anyone has studied the increased carbon footprint of all the necessary manufacturing implications with regards to the proposed gains. And there are many.​

​

Quantify what positive or negative effects on the environment have been made from the changes. Show me the science.​

- "Climate change is real and dynamic."

I am not saying human intervention doesn't change the environment. Every species on the planet affects the environment.

But global climate change is driven by changes in solar cycles. For instance, from heat and radiation... which changes the cloud formations on the planet. Less solar radiation allows more cosmic radiation to hit the earth changing the type of cloud cover... which dramatically changes the planets ecosystem. This has been quantified and proven. And conveniently "forgotten".

Scientists have been actively tracking the temps of several planets for decades. They see the same warming / cooling patterns occurring on all the planets that they monitor.

Of course we can blame the same heating and cooling cycles occurring on Mars (that match those on earth) to human intervention as well.

Anything is possible, just not plausible.

99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. This planet will be thriving long after humanity has exited the planetary stage.

None of this matters, I just want a reliable truck...

Those using ASS, I sure hope the starter is more reliable than the tranny...

 

[dtech]

Contrarian somewhat by nature, responded to the post because one experiment posted on youtube isn't enough to convince me that it's accurate and valid, ass been around for decades and have not seen any legit reports that it is causing accelerated engine wear and failures, the vast majority of auto experts stick to the premise that very little wear occurs from warm engine starts and further more as the Edmunds report mentions other steps have been take with ass to make it reliable.and less obtrusive. Also posted GMs troubles with their 6.2l which drew a slew of youtubers clamoring "see I knew it all along low viscosity oil will ruin engines" . turns out it was a process issue.
As I stated I do not use ass because I've disconnected the bms - if the smart alternator technology saves any measurable amount of gas - I couldn't detect it nor have I seen tests (unlike ass) that measure the mpg gains - plenty of estimates though. And I live in a somewhat rural area and rarely am in stop and go traffic. I did live in Denver though in the brown cloud era which has been significantly reduced via a combination of reduced use of road dirt in winter, retiring older vehicles, winter blend gas and reduced use of wood burning stoves less pollutants overall into air, now Denver struggles with high levels of ozone - which made my eyes burn and water on bad days, it is unquestionably unhealthy.

 

[Jason B]

I don't care how much fuel it saves or reduction in emissions. It's annoying for the engine to shut off, then 10 seconds later has to restart because of the AC or light has changed.
Another thing that annoyed the hell out of me, was that when I stopped in my driveway, the engine shut off, just to restart as soon as I put it in park. So, it was always Tow Mode or ASS off as soon as I start the truck.

 

[Msfitoy]

Even if one were to buy into the climate benefits, gas savings, and causes zero harm to the engine...one has to admit that starting the engine a hundred times a day is sure to burn up one's starter FAST!

 

[dtech]

Even if one were to buy into the climate benefits, gas savings, and causes zero harm to the engine...one has to admit that starting the engine a hundred times a day is sure to burn up one's starter FAST!

pls conduct an experiment and post the results on youtube - could be an opportunity to be the 1st to do so, don't think the TFL guys delve into such minutiae..
However I do believe that I have seen projections that ass starters have an estimated duty cycle of 300,000 starts. So doing the math in 10 yrs, 365 days a year using the starter 100/day gets you 365,000 starts, just marginally above the projections and not all use their autos 365 a year for 10 yrs.

 

[TJC]

Contrarian somewhat by nature, responded to the post because one experiment posted on youtube isn't enough to convince me that it's accurate and valid, ass been around for decades and have not seen any legit reports that it is causing accelerated engine wear and failures, the vast majority of auto experts stick to the premise that very little wear occurs from warm engine starts and further more as the Edmunds report mentions other steps have been take with ass to make it reliable.and less obtrusive. Also posted GMs troubles with their 6.2l which drew a slew of youtubers clamoring "see I knew it all along low viscosity oil will ruin engines" . turns out it was a process issue.
As I stated I do not use ass because I've disconnected the bms - if the smart alternator technology saves any measurable amount of gas - I couldn't detect it nor have I seen tests (unlike ass) that measure the mpg gains - plenty of estimates though. And I live in a somewhat rural area and rarely am in stop and go traffic. I did live in Denver though in the brown cloud era which has been significantly reduced via a combination of reduced use of road dirt in winter, retiring older vehicles, winter blend gas and reduced use of wood burning stoves less pollutants overall into air, now Denver struggles with high levels of ozone - which made my eyes burn and water on bad days, it is unquestionably unhealthy.

I get it... The test is a single data point.

Re: "the Edmunds report mentions other steps have been taken with ass to make it reliable.and less obtrusive."

But I haven't seen a single study that measures the costs / environmental impacts of implementing those manufacturing steps to implement ASS vs the gains achieved.

Not one! None ... Zero!

All of these complicated modifications to systems shorten the effective life of the auto. All of the modern "necessities" such as blue tooth, cell modems, touch screens, etc also use extraordinary amounts of metals when measured by the number of units produced annually.

Edmunds mentions heavier duty batteries, electric pumps for Antifreeze and transmission circulation, etc. I suspect that battery life is also negatively impacted due to the BMS strategy implemented to keep battery charge levels at a max peak of 75%.

All of the above affects the environment. And I'll repeat that no one has studied the impacts of these implementations other than saving petrol.

Denver's air was bad back in the 1970's. The front Range snow capped peaks looked dingy yellow/orange. By 2000 the air was much cleaner, and autos didn't need all these devices on them to achieve that result.

 

[Msfitoy]

pls conduct an experiment and post the results on youtube - could be an opportunity to be the 1st to do so, don't think the TFL guys delve into such minutiae..
However I do believe that I have seen projections that ass starters have an estimated duty cycle of 300,000 starts. So doing the math in 10 yrs, 365 days a year using the starter 100/day gets you 365,000 starts, just marginally above the projections and not all use their autos 365 a year for 10 yrs.

Why? You won't watch it anyway...

 

[dtech]

I get it... The test is a single data point.

Re: "the Edmunds report mentions other steps have been taken with ass to make it reliable.and less obtrusive."

But I haven't seen a single study that measures the costs / environmental impacts of implementing those manufacturing steps to implement ASS vs the gains achieved.

Not one! None ... Zero!

All of these complicated modifications to systems shorten the effective life of the auto. All of the modern "necessities" such as blue tooth, cell modems, touch screens, etc also use extraordinary amounts of metals when measured by the number of units produced annually.

Edmunds mentions heavier duty batteries, electric pumps for Antifreeze and transmission circulation, etc. I suspect that battery life is also negatively impacted due to the BMS strategy implemented to keep battery charge levels at a max peak of 75%.

All of the above affects the environment. And I'll repeat that no one has studied the impacts of these implementations other than saving petrol.

Denver's air was bad back in the 1970's. The front Range snow capped peaks looked dingy yellow/orange. By 2000 the air was much cleaner, and autos didn't need all these devices on them to achieve that result.

Don't disagree with many of your points/arguments, there was a certain scope to the Edmunds article, explain how ass works, what steps auto makers have taken to promote reliability and do several tests to see if it actually yields any mpg gains. It did those things so that is why I felt it was well written - arguably limited in scope, but trying to calculate the cost and impact of the items you mention - best of luck, they might still be trying to assess that 10 yrs later.

Compare the modern auto to those in the 50s - orders of magnitude more expensive, electronics, safety stuff, more efficient engines and trannies and at least for now the costs continue to grow. But still fun to own and drive .

 

[dtech]

Why? You won't watch it anyway...

For you - I just might - provided you speak with some non english accent, even TFL has guys that speak with exotic faraway accents - or at least they did some yrs back. German accent seems to be the most effective , where would Arnold be without his distinctive austrian accent. Or Joe Pesci's NY accent in my cousin Vinny.

 

[dtech]

I get it... The test is a single data point.



Denver's air was bad back in the 1970's. The front Range snow capped peaks looked dingy yellow/orange. By 2000 the air was much cleaner, and autos didn't need all these devices on them to achieve that result.

I believe the biggest impact in cleaning Denver's air came from far less use of dirt/gravel/salt mixes in the winter, now mag chloride I think is mostly used. Of lesser impact was the gradual retirement of older autos which do emit far more pollutants than new autos. In the winter though they still can have inversions, I was there a few days ago and the smog was noticeable but nothing like the 70s/80s and the area has grown hugely since then - seemingly every inch of vacant land is being developed.

 

[got3fords]

Another thing that annoyed the hell out of me, was that when I stopped in my driveway, the engine shut off, just to restart as soon as I put it in park.

This I hate.

 

[TJC]

Don't disagree with many of your points/arguments, there was a certain scope to the Edmunds article, explain how ass works, what steps auto makers have taken to promote reliability and do several tests to see if it actually yields any mpg gains. It did those things so that is why I felt it was well written - arguably limited in scope, but trying to calculate the cost and impact of the items you mention - best of luck, they might still be trying to assess that 10 yrs later.

Compare the modern auto to those in the 50s - orders of magnitude more expensive, electronics, safety stuff, more efficient engines and trannies and at least for now the costs continue to grow. But still fun to own and drive .

The article was well written, but was based upon sourced information, or simply opinion.

The German test published on youtube was much more comprehensive and based upon real world bench testing, insuring that environmental test conditions were identical, with an initial baseline run followed by succeeding runs, each with detailed measurements showing delta differences.

It was far more objective, based upon engineering principles.

The test was still a sample of 1, but the article wouldn't pass scientific rigor.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[dtech]

Probably should have watched the video, may do so today. But did do a fair amount of searching and didn't see much of anything attributing engine failures to use of ass, there were many many discussions and also some fleet mgrs chiming in saying they've seen lots of vehicles using it with 200k miles and no crank failures. Some automotive gurus even contend that engines have become more durable and longer lasting as a result of the changes associated with ass use. I did see what Mazda does for restarts - doing a gdi pulse into a cylinder that is ready and thus oft times does even use the starter. And once again the overwhelming majority of automotive experts contend that restarting a warm engine results in minimal wear. So yeah a single youtube video vs decades of actual use with seemingly limited reports of ass causing premature engine failures . But like the GM 6.2l example with the chorus of "I knew it, 0w-20 destroys engines" is similar to some of the stuff on the web where people still want to belief ass is shortening their engine life, to them I say "duh hit the off button and sleep well at night " or on here unplug that black connector at the batt.

Sponsored